83rd Annual Acadamy Awards

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I just don't get it. I really feel like he carried that entire movie, to the point where I'd've given him lead actor over Eisenberg. Jesse doesn't DO anything in the movie, he just sits there and looks sulky.

I disagree completely, I thought that Eisenberg's performance, undramatic and introverted as it was, had way more complexity to it than just looking sulky and was at the very centre of the film. The whole thing wouldn't have worked anywhere as well without him. Andrew Garfield was very good and yes, very likable and sympathetic (though I also thought that his character in some ways helped dig his own grave), but no way did he carry the film and frankly I didn't think he was better than the rest of the major supporting players.

I'm glad that The Kids Are Alright are getting noms, but not sure why Annette Bening was singled out by everyone instead of Julianne Moore.
 
I know it's already been mentioned, but just looking at the original song category again and I'm just mystified. Was original music really that painfully bad this year? Country Strong got anything nominated? What the hell.

Not only that, but there are only four nominees instead of the usual five.
 
I disagree completely, I thought that Eisenberg's performance, undramatic and introverted as it was, had way more complexity to it than just looking sulky and was at the very centre of the film. The whole thing wouldn't have worked anywhere as well without him. Andrew Garfield was very good and yes, very likable and sympathetic (though I also thought that his character in some ways helped dig his own grave), but no way did he carry the film and frankly I didn't think he was better than the rest of the major supporting players.

I'm glad that The Kids Are Alright are getting noms, but not sure why Annette Bening was singled out by everyone instead of Julianne Moore.

It's just that he plays that same roll in almost every other movie he's in to a degree.

And I agree, I would've rather Julianne Moore been nominated.
 
that is a big leap to hate, you are making.

I have said more than once, that I liked the film. I just don't think it is the best movie of the year. I do expect it to win best picture.
 
I saw The King's Speech over the weekend and I enjoyed it, it surprised me that I liked it as much as I did. Colin Firth deserves it if he wins, and the acting chemistry he had with Rush was so good. Also Hailee Steinfeld for True Grit-well deserved, I thought she made that movie.

Kids Are All Right-blah, I don't get it. Didn't get the whole she-runs-off-with-the-guy thing and it just wasn't that good of a movie (or performances) for me. I think Hollywood just wants to congratulate itself for making a mainstream movie about a lesbian couple starring mainstream stars. Mark Ruffalo is a good enough actor, but honestly I don't get that nomination.

I'm really rooting for Melissa Leo and Bale and I just love that movie so much. I wouldn't have nominated Wahlberg, but I do think he suffers from the fact that his character is the laid back spoke in the wheel. I think for the good of the movie he had to play it low key and that's authentic to who Micky Ward really is.
 
that is a big leap to hate, you are making.

I have said more than once, that I liked the film. I just don't think it is the best movie of the year. I do expect it to win best picture.

So you liked it, but you don't think it's worthy of nomination in any category?

Sounds like hate to me. Or hypocrisy. Or just bull-headedness.
 
TSN is the clear front runner, it has won more 'best' awards than any other film this year. Again, I expect it to win Best Picture and most likely Best Director.

I do not think that it should have not gotten any nominations, I just meant to imply that getting one less nomination, is not such an outrage.

The 10 Best Picture noms are better this year than last year.
District 9 and The Blindside seemed like filler.

If anyone cares, I think TSN is a better movie than Swan, !27 Hours, Winters Bone, and Toy Story 3, that belongs in animation category.
 
I was going to say that by all accounts, Eisenberg portrayed Zuckerberg's personality, particularly in the early days of Facebook, quite accurately.

Don't get me wrong here, I didn't dislike him in the film or anything, and I really like him in general, just being a bit bitter.

Or maybe it's just totally possible to like a movie without thinking it worthy of Academy Award nominations?

There's a difference between a film garnering awards and an actor though.
TSN is the clear front runner, it has won more 'best' awards than any other film this year. Again, I expect it to win Best Picture and most likely Best Director.

I do not think that it should have not gotten any nominations, I just meant to imply that getting one less nomination, is not such an outrage.

The 10 Best Picture noms are better this year than last year.
District 9 and The Blindside seemed like filler.

If anyone cares, I think TSN is a better movie than Swan, !27 Hours, Winters Bone, and Toy Story 3, that belongs in animation category.

1) No, The King's Speech has the most
2) Andrew Garfield's acting abilities have nothing to do with the film in general per se. It's got nothing to do with how many awards the film got it's the fact that Garfield got looked over which is so disappointing/outrageous.

and 3) Why does an animation film HAVE to be in the animation category? Now, I don't know if I think it should be in BOTH categories, but then again, there's a difference between the overall film and the quality of the animation.
 
I do not think that it should have not gotten any nominations, I just meant to imply that getting one less nomination, is not such an outrage.



Whatever you were trying to imply, what you said was (as Ashley quoted above), "any nomination that TSN does not get is a good thing."

That is not the same thing as the even-handed comment you just made, which I agree with. Was Andrew Garfield deserving of a nom? Sure, but his absence isn't an outrage compared to the exclusion of Inception for Editing (especially when The King's Speech is included), or the lack of any technical noms for Shutter Island.

Also, what I've realized over the years is that the film editors in the Academy (if not the ACE itself) are by large a bunch of philistines. The old saying goes that you can't win BP without at least an Editing nom, and it's because that nominating body consistently aims right down the middle of the road. No surprise they usually match up so well. Unlike the cinematographers, art directors, screenwriters, costume designers, sound technicians, etc., these people rarely show ANY imagination or outside-the-box thinking. Nominating an action movie every year doesn't cut it. It's almost as if they see the films that are the big contenders and think "Hmm, these movies must all be loved because they were so well EDITED!", as if the other elements can't factor more heavily.
 
So, like, deep, do you take issue with the Grammys placing "best rock album" nominees up for AOTY? After all, they have their own special category.

Or is an animated film a "painting" rather than a "picture," since there's paint involved?
 
One of the reasons I don't like it is that it pretty much takes all suspense out of the sub-category. Obviously if a documentary, foreign language film, or animated film gets a BP nomination, it's at least winning that other one.

Also, only Pixar and Disney have the marketing ability to get their films in the running for the big stuff, which is kind of bullshit when Ghibli has consistently been making better films, which of course Disney distributes and under-markets so as to not interfere with their own product. Luckily, those underhanded tactics still weren't able to prevent Spirited Away from winning the inaugural Animated Feature award, which may very well be the single-most deserving victory in any category in the history of the Oscars.
 
So, like, deep, do you take issue with the Grammys placing "best rock album" nominees up for AOTY? After all, they have their own special category.

Or is an animated film a "painting" rather than a "picture," since there's paint involved?

A Best Movie winner without any Best Acting performances or Best Director nominations?
 
A Best Movie winner without any Best Acting performances or Best Director nominations?

Who are you going to give an acting award to? Woody? His animator? I mean, I get where you're going, but I just personally disagree.
 
I like animation and documentaries.

and it is possible that my favorite film in any given year could be in either of those categories.
 
Going to see True Grit on Friday.

The the only one that I'm missing is Toy Story 3. Which I haven't yet seen because the better half won't watch it due to some sort of aversion to animated films. See, women don't always get what they want.
 
Also, what I've realized over the years is that the film editors in the Academy (if not the ACE itself) are by large a bunch of philistines. The old saying goes that you can't win BP without at least an Editing nom, and it's because that nominating body consistently aims right down the middle of the road. No surprise they usually match up so well. Unlike the cinematographers, art directors, screenwriters, costume designers, sound technicians, etc., these people rarely show ANY imagination or outside-the-box thinking. Nominating an action movie every year doesn't cut it. It's almost as if they see the films that are the big contenders and think "Hmm, these movies must all be loved because they were so well EDITED!", as if the other elements can't factor more heavily.

Yes. I'm assuming most of the academy members in that branch are the very same by-the-book "middle of the road" technicians who are at their Avid consoles putting together the more formulaic stuff like The King's Speech and The Fighter. I think your "almost as if" is actually quite the truth in this case, and inevitably end up going for safer general "best picture" fare instead of looking for what's new and virtuosic in their own field. The sound guys have their heads on straight at least, and usually offer up the most interesting batch of noms in their editing and mixing categories.
 
For every Walter Murch or Thelma Schoonmaker there are like 1,000 people who are just paying the bills and are trying to match continuity.
 
For every Walter Murch or Thelma Schoonmaker there are like 1,000 people who are just paying the bills and are trying to match continuity.

Precisely. It doesn't help that the "craft" of editing is the most stringently formulaic and "ruled" part of the studio filmmaking process, so as you put it, the vast majority of editors in the academy are surely mere by-the-book technicians, so of course the best picture front runners are going to be the editor's picks.
 
Precisely. It doesn't help that the "craft" of editing is the most stringently formulaic and "ruled" part of the studio filmmaking process, so as you put it, the vast majority of editors in the academy are surely mere by-the-book technicians, so of course the best picture front runners are going to be the editor's picks.

Right, and aside from musical scoring, it's the only aspect of the production that is reactive instead of design-based (with a few exceptions of tight composer-director collabs, where often the music will come into the production earlier).
 
I respect anyone who enjoyed The King's Speech and that vein of filmmaking, that's cool. It's not my tastes. HOWEVER, when you call it the "fundamental" and "sound" way to make a film, as if that should be the standard to which the objective quality of cinematic storytelling should be based, then I don't know what to say to that... at least phrase it politely. Yes, this encounter has happened more than once in the past week.

Am I looking to pick fights? No, but goddamn it, that movie to me is easily the least interesting and compelling film in the BP block and it's the fucking frontrunner? Really? Who the fuck feels passionate about that movie to the point where they're ready to declare it the most accomplished movie of an entire year? It could've been made 50-60 years ago and would've been just as creatively stagnant and cut-and-dry then. Come on, now.
 
Back
Top Bottom